Bodhisattva,

If one carefully reads the order, one finds:

- "The immediate objects are the total distruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible..."

- "After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should shew a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it, on condition that they will give some decisive evidence of their sincerity by de livering up some of the principal instigators of their past hostility into our hands..."

- "I have no power, at present, to authorise you to conclude a treaty of peace with them but you may agree upon the terms of one, letting them know that it must be finally ratified by Congress and giving them every proper assurance that it will."

There is a distinction between the total destruction of settlements (property, crops, infrastructure, etc.) and that of people. If the aim was to attack and kill as many civilians as possible, there would have been no need for Washington to have added, "...and capture as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible." In short, "total destruction" of property was the objective, but "total destruction" of civilians was not.

Furthermore, it was prudent for Washington to have set forth concrete evidence that the Indians were sincere in seeking peace. Actions are essential in helping one evaluate intent.

Indeed, in the Middle East, the absence of concreteness has undermined progress on the path to peace. Instead Israel's good faith gestures have been pocketed by the Palestinians with no reciprocity from the other side. Worse, they have been cited as evidence of Israeli weakness by Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Sadly, demonstrating either a remarkable failure to learn from past experience or an increasing desperation for political survival, Prime Minister Olmert appears poised to make yet another unilateral prisoner release.

Going back to the American Revolution, there is no doubt that some civilian objects e.g., settlements, were not viewed as being immune from attack. Indeed, at the time, the Laws of War had not evolved to the point that distinguished civilian objects from military ones. That didn't happen until later in the 19th century. However, even the order you cited seems to differentiate between civilians and property. There is no definitive statement in the order that civilians were the intended target of the attack. What would properly be defined as civilian property was.